The official positions each American church community has taken on issues facing the next President are quite well documented, available, and clear. The fundamentalist evangelicals have decided to vote for Trump despite deep reservations about his actual Christian beliefs and commitments because they agree with him politically. A few examples should suffice: The members are almost all white, dominated by the leadership of men, and demand that America conform to the way they think and live; they are for sending away undocumented aliens and building a wall against Mexico; anti-evolutionist, there is little respect for science – which is pitted against “religion” and “revelation” – and there is almost no concern for protection of the environment or prevention of further global warming; social and economic justice are issues that cause resentment. The stated reason many fundamentalists give for voting for Trump is to prevent appointments a Democrat might make to the Supreme Court, and the primary focus there is on overturning Roe v. Wade.

Almost without exception, the official positions taken by Protestant mainline denominations oppose Trump because of the church’s prophetic tradition and its concern for social and economic justice, especially protection of minority rights. Again, theologically, most agree with the right of women to decide on issues regarding their own bodies, including the right to an abortion and use of contraception. Increasingly mainline Protestant churches are open to marriage equality and rights for LGBT persons.

It is faithful Roman Catholics who face a choice that will force them to choose between opposing but official positions. On the one hand, there are issues of justice and reconciliation that the National Council of Bishops has consistently supported with brilliant theological statements, guiding the faithful to vote for candidates who will follow the dictates of each statement. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of a declaration of belief regarding the issues came from the Pope: “A person who thinks only about building walls… and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.” This was a stunning, but not surprising, rejection of Trump’s signature position. It did not take a careful examination of the context for the statement to realize that it was pointing to other such issues in which simple human compassion, internationalism, justice, and equality are rejected by the Republican Party nominee. The Pope came precariously close to taking a stand on the election.

On the other hand, there is the Roman Catholic Church’s position regarding human sexuality and the role of women (e.g. contraception) that gets summarized in the question of abortion. Since Roe v. Wade abortion has been the signature position for this denomination. Many American faithful have taken a position so extreme that they actually claim murder when a woman decides to have an abortion. The issue has become YUGE, as Trump would say, overwhelming all others.

Push now has come to Shove: Is allowing a women to have an abortion such an absolute wrong that it trumps – as it were – all of the wrongs and dangers that the church has long identified but that Trump now supports? Is changing the law of the land on abortion, two generations after it has been established, so crucial that it is worth having a man with Trump’s temperament, political and governmental inexperience, and remarkable ignorance hold the office of President? Will Roman Catholic leaders put out a word, however nuanced or blared out, for how the faithful should choose between wrongs? It is going to be interesting to see the faithful Roman Catholic choose.

At the Threshold’s call for church reform tends to aim at the need within the institutional church to confront abuses like fundamentalism and discrimination, but there is also need to address those who stand outside of the church and argue against the faith. In particular there seems to be a growing industry that sells versions of the faith that are as simplistic as they are incorrect. The industry ranges from TV programs that sensationalize assertions and speculations, to conferences for self-congratulations of the utterly secularized, to books that debunk theology.

The general view being promulgated today is that faith is for the silly or the naïve. Part of what makes this frustrating for the informed believer is that what is being offered are merely restatements or reformulations of tired old theories, long since dismissed. I recently received a message from a close friend that offered an example of what that anti-faith industry is saying. It made me long for real and substantial doubt instead of the pablum being offered on the streets today. Read More…

For most gay Americans in the 20th century, the church was a place of pain. It cast them out and called them evil. It cleaved them from their families. It condemned their love and denied their souls. In 2004, a president was elected when religious voters surged from their pews to vote against the legal recognition of gay relationships. When it came to gay rights, religion was the enemy.

A decade later, the story is very different. Congregations across the country increasingly accept, nurture, and even marry their gay brethren. Polls show majorities of major Christian denominations — including American Catholics, despite their church’s staunch opposition — support legal gay marriage. Read the full article here.